Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 17, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL171353
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan)
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: “Town Centre Commercial/Retail Core” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in OPA 671, and “High-Rise Mixed-Use” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (VOP 2010)
Proposed Designation: To amend OPA 671 and the VOP 2010 by adding site specific provisions to permit a maximum density of 4.7 FSI, maximum building height of 27 storeys as well as to allow for changes to policies relating to built form, urban design and connectivity
Purpose: To permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of seven (7) mixed-use 27-storey towers contemplating approximately 1,800 residential units with at-grade commercial uses and 2,400 underground parking spaces, as well as two (2) low-rise commercial buildings, an above grade parking structure, three (3) levels of underground parking and a number of community and resident amenity areas
Property Address/Description: 7700 Bathurst Street
Municipality: City of Vaughan
Approval Authority File No.: OP.16.006
OMB Case No.: PL171353
OMB File No.: PL171353
OMB Case Name: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) v. Vaughan (City)
Heard: September 10, 2021 by Video Hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 1529749 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”) | M. Flynn-Guglietti |
| City of Vaughan (“City”) | E. Lidakis |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On October 30, 2020, the Tribunal had held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with regard to this appeal and based on submissions that the parties were working on a full settlement, the Tribunal at the recommendation of the parties, set a further CMC for this date to provide a status update on the matter and if the parties were able to reach agreement, then the CMC could be converted to a settlement hearing.
2The Tribunal, at this CMC, heard a status update, set a further date for Tuesday, April 19, 2022, gave directions with regard to materials to be prepared for that hearing event, and dealt with an oral request for reinstatement of party status, all for the reasons set out below.
DECISION
3The Tribunal was advised that the parties’ expectations for progress on this matter had been effectively derailed by a servicing issue that set the anticipated timeline back by months.
4The servicing issue has now been resolved and as a result the Applicant will be resubmitting a Zoning By-law Amendment application on or before the end of September 2021, as at the present time there is only an Official Plan Amendment before the Tribunal.
5Contingent on the timing of that resubmission, counsel for the City submitted that a report could go to City Council for the March 2022 cycle.
6Accordingly, the parties requested that the Tribunal set a date for mid-April 2022 as either a settlement hearing date (for which a land use planning affidavit would be filed), or as a CMC (at which a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List would be considered).
7The Tribunal set a one day hearing for Tuesday, April 19, 2022, commencing at 10 a.m. by VH.
[8] Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/250051461 Access code: 250-051-461
9Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: 1+(647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889. The access code is 250-051-461.
11Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
12In the event that the hearing set for April 19, 2022 were to proceed as a settlement hearing, the Tribunal directed that a land use planning affidavit be filed with the Case Coordinator at least two weeks in advance of the hearing, and that the affiant attend the hearing.
13In the event that there is no settlement, the hearing may be converted to a CMC and for that eventuality, the Tribunal directs that the parties shall file with the Case Coordinator at least two weeks in advance of the hearing a draft PO and Issues List, and an estimate of the length of the hearing.
14Additionally, the Tribunal directed that any draft PO shall contain the following:
a. Mandatory meetings of all like experts;
b. The requirement of a draft Hearing Plan 65 days in advance of a hearing; and,
c. All materials filed with the Tribunal to be in both electronic and hard copy formats.
15Any materials filed with the Tribunal by the parties shall also be provided to the participants on a timely basis.
16At the end of the CMC, Mario Racco on behalf of the Brownridge Ratepayers Association, made an oral request to have its party status reinstated.
17This request for a change in status was promptly objected to by counsel for the Applicant as it came without any notice and she outlined a history of non-attendance, and non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Order for explanation of non-attendance, which ultimately resulted in the revocation of the originally granted party status. Counsel for the Applicant indicated that the parties had been working in good faith toward a possible settlement and that to allow this oral motion would set the entire process back to 2018.
18Counsel for the City agreed with the history provided by counsel for the Applicant. She too noted that the oral motion came without notice, that she was completely caught off-guard and that obviously without any notice she had had no opportunity to seek instructions from her client.
19Mr. Racco replied that a reinstatement of party status would provide a voice for the people and that his view was that the City always was supportive of such requests.
20The Tribunal considered the submissions and gave an oral decision.
21The Tribunal dismissed the oral motion, as firstly it came without any notice to the Tribunal or any of the parties, that it came literally years after the Tribunal had originally revoked the party status, that it came without any explanation for that passage in time, that the request simply came too late in the process, and that to now allow the motion and introduce a potentially adverse party to settlement discussions that the parties had been working on for years, would be most unfair and highly prejudicial to the parties.
22Thus, the motion was dismissed.
23With regard to the hearing event set for Tuesday, April 19, 2022, there will be no further notice.
24I am not seized.
25Scheduling permitting, I may be available for case management purposes.
26This is the Order of the Tribunal.
“Blair S. Taylor”
BLAIR S. TAYLOR
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.